Local opinion: Arizona must pay for more Colorado River water rights

This summer is the last chance for seven western states to allocate the Colorado River voluntarily, yet gridlock persists. At bottom, the debate raises foundational ethical questions: how should resources be allocated in times of scarcity, and do agreements made 100 years ago about how to divvy up the water still matter today? From my research in ethics and environmental law, I believe the best answer has yet to be recognized. Justice demands that upper basin states (Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming) give up some of their promised water but that lower basin states (Arizona, California and Nevada) ought to pay for the extra water they receive.

To see why, consider a thought experiment from philosopher Jeremy Waldron: imagine you and I own ranches in an arid region. We drill wells on our respective properties and enjoy plentiful water. Good times end, however: a drought sets in and my well runs dry. Due to the geography of the area, you continue to have a surplus. What, if anything, do you owe me? Without anyone else around to help, are you obligated to share your water? The answer is yes, to an extent.

It would be wrong, for instance, if you prevented me from accessing your water just to let the water go unused, leaving me to die in the desert. It would also be wrong if you kept me from your well so that you could build a nice new pool, or even so that you could increase your wealth by adding many more heads of cattle, all while I perish nearby. Simply put, in times of scarcity and desperation, justice limits a person’s property rights. Justice will never require you to endanger yourself, but more modest sacrifices can become obligatory.

What most people miss, however, is that obligations can fall onto the recipients of aid. Return to the above case. First, even though water is scarce, other resources may not be. So, while you are obliged to give me water, if I have money, labor or something else to give in return, I ought to do so. It would be unfair for me to hold onto large amounts of disposable wealth and take your water, for instance, leaving you worse off and me only better off.

Second, even though I receive water from you, I cannot use it however I want. For I do not have the right to an endless amount of your water. The water you owe me is only for the basic conditions of life, not for wasting away or endless economic growth. So, I mustn’t add more cattle to my ranch or build a pretty fountain in my courtyard. Indeed, if scarcity persists, I need to reduce my water consumption greatly, scaling back my ranch operations. To do otherwise would be to limit your future opportunity unjustly.

Carried over to the Colorado River, a solution seems clear: upper basin states ought to give some of their unused water to lower basin states, even though they all previously agreed to allocate that water to the upper basin. The scarce and desperate times limit the past agreements, particularly because the scarcity was unforeseen. And make no mistake: the lower basin states are facing dire times. Tens of millions of people in those states depend on the river for drinking water.

Moreover, 70 percent of the water goes to food production, with the majority going toward crops in lower basin states. Running out of water is an existential threat to the cities and people in the lower basin, and it is a threat to food security the nation over. However, what others have missed is that the lower basin states ought to purchase the water from upper basin states and minimize their burden on those states, even if that means ceasing new housing developments and industrial projects.